Sarah Palin has two followings. One side of the political spectrum hates her. The other loves her. Very, very few Americans are indifferent or neutral towards her. It's been a long time since a politician has enjoyed such polarization. But why is this? The answer is simple. She is simple. Simple to read. Simplistic in her answers. Better phrased, Palin is straight forward. She's not a good lair. One can read in her body language and her fumbling for words when she is trying to be deceitful. Fortunately she tries to be deceptive very rarely. Only when trying to be all things to all people does she come across that way. Like when she tried to appeal to the republican base during the presidential election instead of holding steadfast to her conservative values and beliefs, even if they did not conform perfectly to the so-called moderates or independents the republicans were wooing.
A prime example is when she was asked by a reporter (unworthy of naming here) what she read? The question took her by surprise. As it should have. It was a question as significant as what is her favorite food, or color, or sports team. Who cares? In true two-party fashion she stammered out some politically correct uniform answer – like she had been instructed to by the republican syndicate. But she wasn't 'smooth' about it, and came across as disingenuous. She would have been better served if she had just been truthful. It's a good bet one could find magazines like Field and Stream, American Hunter, NRA, The American Conservative, and The Christian Science Monitor right along side with Vogue, People, Readers Digest, Cosmopolitan, and Vanity Fair. And what would have been wrong with that answer? Does one have to read the Washington Post or New York Times to be informed, experienced, or worthy of leadership?
Let's examine her experience level. For six years she led a large state to financial stability in a bi-partisan way. She made decisions and governed well, earning her the respect of her constituents, advocates, peers, and adversaries. The man we elected instead, had one year experience in voting instead of leading, and voted “present” more often than “yea” or “nay.”
Compare Palin to Hillary Clinton. Two different platforms and sets of beliefs. Yet there are more similarities than differences. Both are strong, opinionated women. Both have viable answers and solutions to the woes this nation faces, and believe in their respective approaches. The main difference between the two is one eventually chose to put her party and her future in it ahead of the good of the country, and one abandoned her party to pursue her ideology and beliefs, and better serve her country.
So why did Palin “quit” as governor? Again – a simple answer. Palin sought political freedom. Freedom to express her views outside of staunch party guidelines. And those conservative views have made her the “darling” of the Tea party. And a possible force to be reckoned with in the 2012 presidential election. Suppose she actually ran. Suppose she actually won. What would a Palin presidency mean?
If Sarah Palin were president, government spending would go down, not up. The budget would contract, not expand. Taxes would be lowered, and incentives to business growth would be the norm. She would govern like she did in Alaska. She would be 'readable' to the American people. She would put the good of the nation before the good of whatever party she belongs to. The people would still be polarized as to whether they loved her or hated her, but she would govern for the benefit of all citizens. In the end a Palin presidency would be as pleasing to the citizenry, as she is to the eyes.